Wednesday, 26 November 2008

I'm moved to create this post in response to some people claiming a right for Linux users to have the iTunes database file (iTunesDB) decrypted to facilitate use of iPods under their operating system. The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) have come out and criticised Apple for attempting to keep copyrighted material (and quite possibly proprietary intellectual property) private. Apple, for its part, have requested takedown of the site(s) and/or sections of site(s) publishing the information that may lead to its eventual decryption under the DMCA.

So here goes.

The DMCA isn't the Digital Music Copyright Act - its the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It doesn't *have* to be music (or video or literature or art etc) in the encrypted DB file for it to be illegal to circumvent the encryption - it just has to have the encryption in order to demonstrate that its usage is controlled in some manner and attempting to reverse engineer that encryption for the purpose of getting at the contents is specifically an attempt at circumvention of those controls.

If people want to get hung up about the contents of the file, then (and this is obviously pure speculation) Apple could place within it a section of licensed copyrighted material such as even a single artwork cover from *any* in its library (not YOUR library) and you wouldn't know until you've circumvented the encryption and found it. If this is the case, would all the efforts to facilitate operations of iPod integration on Linux immediately cease out of respect for the DMCA then? In essense, that last part is all that Apple is trying to achieve, without getting to a point where someone has already breached the DMCA. In my mind Apple's stance can be likened to a restraining order for the purpose of preventing a crime taking place and the EFF can be described as taking the place of the bully, in this matter.

Tuesday, 20 May 2008

I'm partial to watching Jonathan Ross (BBC1, "Friday Night With Jonathan Ross"), and I was quite enjoying the show, including the interview with Andrew Marr, until the point where Andrew proclaimed that he thinks "the main thing is that if people don't like the way the country's run and they haven't voted they've got absolutely no right to winge. If you don't like it, go out and vote." Aaargh.

What part of my right to choose to NOT vote does this political commentator not understand? More importantly, his lack of understanding on the point demonstrates the fragile nature of trust that the public may or may not have for media and media "experts" that is far more dangerous than the politicians themselves. The level of ignorance over a basic right of choice, not even getting into the subsequent free speech argument post abstention, for me reflects badly on not only his own skewed views, but the fact that he doesn't appear in his time as a political correspondant to have grasped the nature of his role to the public at large.

Long live Jonathan Ross.

Note: For the record, I have voted in some elections in the past and have also conciously chosen not to vote in some elections in the past. I cannot speak to my future actions yet.

The comment was "Copying a disc doesn't kill people." - outrageous. That statement can not be made with certainty any more than I can say that someone in Australia will live to 140 years old by the end of the century.

Every action has consequences and just because bitchucker is demonstrating that he/she is too shortsighted to see it doesn't mean it isn't true.

How about this scenario:

A sales target was missed by 1 single sale. Because of that, the sales manager responsible fails to get the budget to allocate bonus to his staff. Just one of the workers in that department was counting on the bonus which had been promised and expected (based on AACS working to ensure sales wouldn't suffer to pirates) to bail them out of their current debt. In order to continue to survive, this worker (or any member of his/her family) gets desperate and finds themselves doing something they shouldn't - taking a chocolate bar from a local store illegally. They get caught on the store CCTV and ultimately end up prosecuted for the offence. Depression sets in and his job suffers. As a result of that, he gets fired and can no longer feed his family. I could go on, including additional crimes, drugs, homelessness, suicide etc.

At any point in that chain of circumstances things could have turned out differently - just because a sales target was missed by 1, one might argue that the bonus was still due, but what number would be sufficient to withhold bonuses - 2, 10, 100, 9998 or 10000? But why not 1?

I cannot see how such a comment is justified, but then I do not understand criminal behaviour either.

And for the record, I have neither an HD or BluRay player and do not work for, or on behalf of anyone either directly or indirectly involved with AACS.

This comment applies to ALL* attempts to justify criminal behaviour in a similar fashion - not just this particular instance.

* - OK, as a colleague has pointed out maybe not ALL, but pretty much most. I'm sticking to that. [Line Added: 27-Nov-2008]